tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 30, 2019 1:00am-2:00am PDT
and she'll be with us in a few minutes. thank you to this committee's clerk, john carole and i'd like to thank kerwin cooley at sf gov tv for staffing this meeting. >> yes, please ensure you silence your cellphones and speakers cards are part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items will appear on the july 30th, 2019 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you mr. clerk. for item number one, since supervisor brown is a co sponsor, i'm going to hold off on that. we'll call the items out of order. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 2. >> clerk: agenda item number 2 is a resolution regarding non renew of a historical property contract the owner of 960 market. under chapter 71 of the
administrative code notifying the assess recordings office and authorization the notice of the non renewal and record a notice of non renewal. >> as you may be aware there's a state law called the mills act, which we administer through charter 71, i think it is, of our administrative code. it is an incentive for property owners to invest in their historic properties and gives them property tax abatement for a rolling period of 10 years. during my second tour of duty on the board of supervisors, we granted one such contract to the old chronical building, it had since moved out. today, it is a beautiful restored historic building with the ritz carleton residentses up above at the corner of market
and kearney. they have received substantial tax benefits. the board of supervisors retains the ability to stop that tax relief at any time with a 10-year notice. and insofar as they have now recouped their investment in that historical resource, i thought it correct and right that we terminate the mills act and recoup those dollars to the general fund. the historic preservation agreed with that and i believe ms. fergusson is here on behalf of the planning department and the historic preservation commission and i will turn it over to her. >> thank you, supervisor. good morning, my name is sham on first thinfergusson.
i have a resolution for non renewal of the mills act contract for 690 market street. the mills act contract for 690 market street was approved by the planning commission on marc. the board of supervisors approved it on november 18th, 2008 and it was recorded on the anniversary date of the contract in 2009. the nine-storey office tower originally constructed in 1889 to 90 and the a joining 16-storey tower constructed in 1905 or subject the to the mills act contract. the eight-storey completed in 2007 is not subject to the mills act contract. >> even though the property owner wanted it would be but we said no. >> the rehabilitation workout lined in the mills act contract has been completed and the maintenance workout lined in the contract is on going. as supervisor mentioned, the mills act legislation offers
local government to qualified historic properties. disagreement provides tax reductions to those properties who can allocate those savings towards maintenance plans to preserve the property. the city currently holds 37 active mills act contracts. so, under administrative codes chapter 71, the members act mils effective on the date it was recorded. it has a term of 10 years and one year is added to the term of the contract on the anniversary date, unless notice of non renewal is given. the mills act contract allows the property owner or the city to not renew the contract. notice of non renewal must be served by either party before the annual renewal date. if notice is not served prior to the renewal date, one year will be automatically added to the term of the contract. if either party service notice of non renewal, the mills act will remain in effect for the
balance of the period remaining since the last renewal. the planning department does recommend serving the notice of non renewal to the property owner of 690 market street. the mills act contract has provided an incentives for rehabilitation work and non renewal a chiefs a better value between the benefits to the property owner and the cost to the city. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you ms. fergusson. just by a larger mills act context, some of these, particularly on a smaller residential scale, will completely be recouped in the 10-year period. as a matter of policy, we should look at these 37 kilometres and deciding which ones we want to terminate and which should continue and that should be the policy of this body.
>> are there any members of the public who wish to testify on this item. you have two minutes. >> if you are developing a contract for historical buildings, and it's for the benefit for both the historical building and the community, there shouldn't be no time limit period. there shouldn't be no deadline to renew it. if it's a good contract to begin with, and an understanding to begin with, there should be no deadline and you are causing more confusion. in the end the owner is tied up with other business and the same response to conflicts with the deadline and that deadline is accidentally or inintentionly missed, the owner of the historical building loses
protection. so there shouldn't be a deadline on the contract to begin with. it's a good program and it's a good program for life. from generation to generation to generation. if there's an earthquake in the building it collapsed. you are making more work for yourself. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to testify on this item? >> good morning, supervisors, i'm going to speak entirely as a citizen today. i'm here on another item but this caught my attention. peter cohen. i've been involved in neighborhood activism for a while. i think i remember this project and this is the ritz carleton time shares, right? or whatever it is?
and what was challenging at the time and i don't know if this is why the city is not renewing the mills act. this was pitched as a housing project and even then we had a housing supply need. the argument was this would be helpful to the property owner restoring the building because they were also going to be investing and creating more housing for our city's needs. even though it was market rate housing, everyone knew it would be high-end. there was a sense it was sort of an underlying logic in the city for going those tax dollars. when it was built as time share condos, a ritz carleton club, i don't think anybody was aware of that on the community side. it seemed a little bit kind of opportunityizing what should be a precious tool to incentivize historic preservation but the actual use of our historic structures in a way that has a public benefit. i don't know if that's how things played out for our
electives but we were caught off guard about what was being proposed and hopefully the use of this mills act is essentially the city foregoing taxes will be actually used in a way that will really see the outcome of the building reuse having its greatest public benefit. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other public comments on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. any additional comments or questions for my colleagues? i'd be happy to send this to the full board with positive recommendation. >> great. done. welcome, supervisor brown. why don't we go back to item number 1. mr. clerk, can you call that item. >> clerk: agenda item number one is ar ordinance amending the building code to wave specified fees for 100% affordable housing projects and accessory dwelling units projects for one-year
pilot program and affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa. >> thank you. well, first i wanted to thank mayor breed and her staff for her work on this legislation to wave building code fees for 100% affordable housing and also accessory dwelling units. i'm proud to co sponsor this legislation along with supervisor brown. and i appreciate the opportunity for us to have brought this back to the j.a.o. committee for a second hearing to consider some amendments and today i'm introducing throw amendments to this legislation. i want to change the date -- wait a minute. i don't know if you guys got this.
>> here is the deadline for you. so, i have three amendments that i'm introducing. first i would like to amend to change the retro activity date from february 26th, 2019, to june 1st, 2019. so that is a total length of the pilot program remains at about 15 months as originally contemplated and expected by d.b.i. secondly, while i support the legislation waving building fees for 100% affordable housing projects, i would like to amend to include reporting requirements to understand who is benefiting from the fee waivers. this includes whether the a.d.u. is a single family home or
multi-unit building. for the length of the time the applicant opened the property and whether they intend to representative the property. we would like to understand if applicants are individuals or large corporations and who own multiple properties across san francisco. as with any pilot, gathering and assessing data is vital to our decision to continue the program. finally, i would like to amend to limit the eligible applicants of the fee waivers to single-family homes, multi unit buildings up to four units and not profit organizations. san francisco gives monetary incentives for a housing development, we need to ensure our dollars are truly meeting our housing needs. since the launch of the a.d.u. program, most the overwhelming majority of permits, a.d.u. permits have been for multi-unit
buildings yet there are opportunities in my district and across the city to add density in increasing the housing supply in single-family homes or smaller apartment buildings. this waiver -- this fee waiver will incentivize a.d.u. production where it's been under developed. the fee waiver also insin ta vice victims who want to build a a.d.u. and are experiencing prohibitive barriers to entry. we should support everyday members in our community to stay in their homes, provide housing for their family members and create rental units for members of our community. additional financial incentives would help immensely. what we do not want to do is to subsidize private developers for real estate investors in large apartment buildings with an incentives, they do not need and can absolutely afford to pay themselves.
the amendment is not perfect, my intention is to support homeowners and small property owners to create more housing and i look forward to seeing an increase in a.d.u.s and the results of the pilot so colleagues, i request that you accept my amendment. supervisor brown. >> i really appreciate us having that conversation yesterday about raising the unit count. i know when you were looking at it, you were looking at if for single-family homes where the owner doesn't live there. and so, we talked about raising it to four. i have to say too, when i was out and about last night, i was looking at a lot of the buildings in my district and i was in another district too where a lot of the opportunities for a.d.u.s could be 10 and
under. and i know that's where we look at our inclusionary and it's a standard. i just thought, could we have this discussion about numbers and what that might mean today before we vote on this amendment? so, i am just saying, can we think about raising it to 1 10? 10 units and under. >> we can have additional discussion now about the number of units in a building that would be eligible for the fee waiver. it's four units or in buildings of four units or less and --
there's an article from the chronicle that sparked my additional thinking about this from april 18th. new use for san francisco garages and upscale apartments. this article highlights a real estate investor that has added 12a.d.u.s to five different buildings. the one unit highlighted in the new a.d.u. the rent is $5,750 a
month so it's my strong feeling that for, again, for the real estate investors who have been adding a.d.u. to large apartment buildings, they don't -- those are not the type of folks that really need a few thousand dollars fee waiver incentive to add a.d.u.s, i prefer to target the fee favor and really a public subsidy to expand a.d.u.s to property owners that really need that and it would help move the needle further on bringing more a.d.u.s on to the market? >> well, i appreciate and i respect what you are saying. i think, a., i talked to
planning and district 5 has the most a.d.u.s and i asked them what's the average price. the average price in district 5 is about $2500 for a one bedroom for the a.d.u.s and a lot of them are in the larger apartment buildings, you are correction, absolutely. when you go out and look for an apartment in district 5, whether it's an old victorian apartment, the a.d.u. at 2500 is between 1200 and $1500 less. so, they are affordable. much more affordable and i read that article too and i think that was bernal heights, right. where someone made a luxury a.d.u. two-bedroom a.d.u. and that's not the norm. that was something that was unusual. almost all the a.d.u.s in my district, which has the most, and so i'm looking at the a.d.u.
numbers are one bedroom and studio apartments. and they're not the luxury. people aren't spending high-end finishing on them and things like that. so they're affordable apartments. also, since seniors are our fastest growing population, these a.d.u.s without stairs, are really important to have. i've been out and about in my district quite a lot lately and i've been talking to a lot of the seniors that live in apartments that are three-storeys up or two-storeys up and they're flats and apartment building requests noso elevators and they would be happy to live in an a.d.u. on a ground floor. i just feel like we're in a situation right now in the city that we're really struggling to get housing and hopefully affordable housing. the a.d.u.s too, are also places where young couples or
singles can go and it's their first apartment or apartment that you can move into that is affordable. i just feel like, you know, at least bringing the number up a little bit to 10, so it would be 10 and under, it's something that i think is really important to try to give us more affordable housing. we're always going to have the people that go in and take advantage of a situation and build that luxury a. d.u. in a very popular neighborhood and i think they were asking $5500 or something like that for it. i really also feel and i feel very strongly about this and i really appreciate that we find out, who is actually building and had that reporting. who is building these a.d.u.s? i don't know. we all have speculations but we don't know. this reporting request, chair
mar, is so important and i really want to thank you for that. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> so there's nothing in the packet that tells us how much the fees are being waved. maybe we can hear from the b.l.a. and from d.b.u. as to how much these fees are. first of all, let me just say i completely concur on the 100% affordable housing. i do share the sentiment did not wave fees that pay for our inspectors and and i don't think it's anecdotal for and are the folks who are taking advantage of it's great and i support that
but i don't know -- what this means is we're going to basically use other dollars to subsidize the work of building inspectors and that is what it means. i don't know that we have to be basically subsidizing veratos when that thing is going to sash flow and we can give the mom and pop an incentive. the question is where is that point and let's do that based on data and anecdotally we know most a.d.,s are going into buildings that are larger than four units and maybe we can hear as to how much the fees generally are and what the breakdown is as to where they're being built. >> thank you. is there someone here from
d.b.i. that could help? provide and the permit fees for a.d.u.s. >> good morning, supervisors, bill strong with legislative and public affairs at d.b.i. we've had our i.d. group take a look at fees looking actually at the original proposed date from february 26th and they came up with 22 affordable housing projects and that 100% category actually most of those came in in april and may. we haven't seen those applications in june or july yet. out of those 22, i think that the total number of fees that were estimated is about $675,000. and those are a little hard to
say how accurate they are because i think you may know that currently, d.b.i. doesn't collect any fees on those 100% affordables until the c.f.c. is issued. so, projects could change in the fee total element could change. that is probably a ballpark and if you have reached out, the 22 projects at that amount i think it comes to roughly 30 or $40,000 on a rough average. of course, you can't really average it because some buildings are much bigger and so fourth. >> if i can insert myself at that spot. i have no quarrel with that at all. these are projects that are funded by the city. it's basically -- you're putting $675,000 into the project that -- i mean, it's six and one half-dozen and the other. i'm fine with that. >> i think we all are. >> absolutely. >> and on the a.d.u.s, again,
looking at the data we have right now, there were 99a.d.u. projects from that february 26tg forward and those fees amounts to $280,000. sour looking at a rough average of 3,000, $3500 and with some margin of error there. the department is happy to work with the supervisor and come up with a reporting additional requirements that are necessary and obviously the fee numbers will get more accurate as we actually have projects that we can specify. >> through the chair to mr. strong, how is that 180 projects in this time period? do you have a breakdown of how many of them were in buildings over four, over 10. >> i do not have that in my
finger tips but i can certainly get that for you. >> i think planning does. i think planning does have that. >> anything else? >> >> well, would you have that figure or some the a.d.u.s and applicants or permits that were in and to larger and for not just from february. there's been figures shared about that. >> >> thank you so much. >> >> we can go to public comment on this item. >> so, members of the public, please step forward. you have two minutes to speak.
$57 million i demonstrated and every deal that was toured by gavin. it was out aged. for $64 million. you eliminate all this in a big stride in front and 100% non-profit developer for low income bracket people. you don't have to charge no fees. get rid of the developer that is charging and interested in
private only. you won't have this problem. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> peter cohen. support the legislation seems like really kind of low hanging fruit and we've been trying to trim margin inover the last couple of years as construction costs were driven by materials cost have really skyrocketed. anything we can do is helpful and there's a i want to really commend y'all for thinking about how to use this extr strategicay whether it's for the small
homeowner or building homeowner or across the board. i've leave that to you. but again, the city is foregoing money so it's using it strategically who who is tipping point are you trying to help is a good policy discussion. and the reporting amendment that you suggested supervisor mar is great. we really need to learn from these kinds of policies. sometimes we have a tendency to some up with great ideas and hope for the best and we move onto the next item. this report back is great. i just want to conclude, this legislation is an example of the kind of collaboration that can and should happen on everything around affordable housing. i mean, everyone supports affordable housing. it's not as competitive as sometimes it seems to be. when we're doing legislation for whatever it is to advance our affordable housing or to incentivize new ways to create affordable housing or changing our zoning systems or finding
money, let's all work together. it's a great example of how we can come up with a good idea, talk about it, workout the fine edges and i'm sure this will move through the board unanimously. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to testify in this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there someone from the b.l.a.s office that is able to shed light on these questions that we've been discussing on a.d.u.s either permitted or applied for that are in larger -- like four unit buildings and maybe more than 10 units or larger? >> good morning chair mar and members of the committee. we did report on this item in april. at that time, we did note that we estimated that approximately
280a.d.u. projects would be subject to the one year fee waiver program based on the first six months of fiscal year 2018-2019 that had 92 a.d.u. project permits so we estimated that if that pace remains steady for the remainder of the year there would be about 200 units and we estimated that the amount of fees, the dollar value of fees for those projects would be about $3200. fortunately we did not have any data on the size of the building and the a.d.u. projects were in. i would defer to the apartment at this time for that and we noted it was a policy matter for the board. >> thank you so much. is there additional information, mr. strong, that you have to present on this?
>> i've been given some break out of some data. i would be happy to share it with you. i would also like frankly to take it back to the department and run our own numbers to make sure we're all giving you correct information. i'm happy to share these with you. this does provide some estimate -- i'm assuming it is from this past fiscal year a year ago many of the top line apparently represents the single-family homes and then two units, three units, four units and up to 10 units. i'm seeing it for the first time so i'm not really able to give you any specifics about that until i go back and talk to our i.t. people to take a look.
>> based on these numbers, this is the entire history of a.d.u.s right? >> i would assume. probably dating from 2014-2015. >> we're at about 1200 and this is 1,038 so this captures the vast majority of them. >> the largest cluster is in six unit or larger buildings. 314 is the big number and that's six unit buildings. this is about 2% of the average
project cost. this is not going to make or break it whether you are a mom and pop or whether you are a large corporate apartment owner. if this thing isn't is a cash flow and it's a good investment and you can get a loan to do the project, you are going to do that if you are a small person with a $3200 fee and d.b.i. or you are veritos. it's a month's rent is basically what the building cost is. i don't care. it's a 15-month pilot program. i defer to chair mar but it's kind of six one half-dozen and the other. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. and also thank you for this additional data that we have on the a.d.u.s so far and again, what we're looking at here that was provided shows that the
largest number of a.d.u.s significantly has been in buildings of -- properties of six units. so, i think given this and all through just my sort of feeling that we really do not need to provide a fee waiver to incentivize larger or real estate developers and landlords of larger apartment buildings because they're adding a.d.u.s to their building. where we really need to target the incentives and the single-family homes and the smaller apartment buildings that are just mom and pop owners. you my strong preference is to stick with the threshold that we had agreed on yesterday and that is allowing a fee favor on four
properties of four units or less and then through the evaluation of this 15-month pilot program we can see how things play out and consider adjusting that the threshold, the unit size threshold in the future. >> thank you, chair mar. yeah, i mean, i totally understand what you are saying and believe me, i don't want to give certain large landlords and i know supervisor peskin named a couple and i have them in my district holding their feet to the fire. any advantage, i mean they should be paying this if they want to have another unit. and the number of a.d.u.s proposed for property between 2014 and the first quarter of 2018 has ranged from one to nine units. so just wanted to get that to us to give us a perspective.
tofor me, i want to push this forward, chair mar, and i really appreciate you opening it up to small property owners to four units. i want to push this forward so we can give people a chance and actually just have them think about doing an a.d.u. and their property. i'm fine with moving this forward and i really thank you for your work on this. >> thank you. >> colleagues, can we accept the amendments as introduce without objection and recommend this to the full board without objection as amended? great, thank you. mr. clerk, please call item number 3. >> clerk: agenda item number 3 is resolution to authorization -- approving the sheriff department home detention and electronic
monitoring and approving evidence of financial responsibility demonstrated by the program administrator. fentanyl offender services llc for the 2019 calender year. >> thank you. i'd like to recognize the chief financial officer here to present on this item. mr. hollins. >> thank you. good morning supervisors. i'm here requesting approval of the resolution for the sheriff's department's electronic monitoring program rules and regulations. i'm joined here today with chief michelle fisher, who until recently managed the department's alternative division that handsels the monitoring. she can speak to program details including rules and regulations. i have some handouts and paper as well.
just some program history. the electronic monitoring program was established it provide alternatives to incarceration were in participation is ordered by the courts. we had a fee structure based on ability to pay for sentenced participants. and then last year there were a number of events that caused growth in the program. there's an appellant court ruling and non monetary alternatives when setting bail or release conditions at the same time sheriff hennessey waved fees for participants. all of this pre seeded the significant growth and the program monthly program participants increased from about 100 in february 2018 to 400 as of may 2019. and we had a contract with leaders and communities
alternatives that we went through competitive bid process where the new contract was awarded to term of the proposed contract begins august 1. the rules and regulations are essentially the same. if you go to slides 3 and 4, you can see the growth of the graphically you can see the growth of the program. you can see the a pal enter appd the cost of the program has increased quite a bit but still the contract is for under $10 million. we're not here for that but just rules and regulations. finally, the last slide, slide 5 shows the snapshot showing the increase in release on alternatives back in 2016.
we had a total population that the sheriff's department was charged with of 2238 and of those 1371 were actually incarcerated in the jail with another 866 out of custody on pre trial release or sentenced to alternatives including electronic monitoring and that meant about 40% of people were out on alternatives as of late last week. the jail population has remained roughly the same. with that, i can answer questions myself or chief fisher. >> thank you. any questions? >> thank you so much. are there any members of the public that wish to testify on
this item. please step forward, you have two minutes. >> go ahead morning, supervisors, i am at california attorney in 20-year resident of the city. the title language of file number 190673 is misleading and incorrect. the ruse and regulations of the program are not contained in appendix a. appendix a is is the contract or's responsibility. the rules and regulations of the county program are contained in separate documents that are not before you today. if you approve this legislation this will be the sixth time in five years that the board, the city attorney and the sheriff's office have misleadingly represented to the public the obligations imposed by state law regarding the operation of the county's e.m. program. the personal code does not authorization the she ever to operate the program and they authorized the board to permit the sheriff to operate the e.m. program. they must approve contracts
between the sheriff and the e.m. program in addition to its obligation to approve the program rules and regulations. the upcoming contract is set to begin august 1st has never been approved by the board. according to the controllers' office of the sheriff staffing practices released last month, they have a program report a 2,382% increase in e.m. program violations by participants over the past four years. if the city's attorney office is advising the board that it does not need to provide public approval of the e.m. contract at a properly noticed public board meeting the city attorney is giving you bad information. your colleagues and other countries across the state including l.a., san diego are well aware of and fulfill their open government and public disclosure obligations regarding the operation of e.m. programs. why is it that san francisco board of supervisors repeatedly violates the obligations under the c.p. c. including approval of the county's e.m. contracts
and annual approval of the programs rules and regulations. thank you for your time. thank you. public comment i comment is clo. any additional comments or questions? i'd like to move we send this item to the full board with positive recommendations. can we take that without objection. >> great. mr. clerk, please call item number 4. >> clerk: agenda item number 4 ordinance and many of the administrative code to create office of division of the human rights decision department to create a city wide racial equity framework and assist the racial equity, analyze and racial equity and carry out various other policy and recording. to require city department to create racial equity action plan and updates of such plans and
require city departments to designate employees as racial equity leaders and require the department of human resources to produce an annual report in the city workforce and mr. chair, this item has been requested to be a again diesed as a committee report for next tuesday the 23rd. >> thank you, supervisor brown, the floor is yours. >> thank you, i'm asking you to join me and move forward with the creation of the first ever office of racial equity. i want to thank supervisor fewer, her staff and my staff and especially all the community members who came last week and provided important testimony on this ordinance. i ask our community continue working with us. we have a funded mandate. let's get the data to make better decisions on crafting legislation and funding. let's hold our departments accountable and hold the city. let's do right by our community
of color and chair mar, i'd like to move to make a positive recommendation of this item and recommend that move to the full board and be scheduled for july 23rd. >> thank you, supervisor brown. do we need to take public comment? >> we must. >> is there any members of the public that wish to testify on this item? you have two minutes. mr. wright. >> we have a long way to go. you want to do racial equality and what you did to black people. you got that? this goes back not only to your slavery treatment of blacks. it goes back to the city didn't do a damn thing about it. it expanded to treasure island. you got testimony that each and
every god damn department here in the city and county of san francisco in san francisco discriminates against black people. and you did it to me when i used to work for muni. you get more respect to undocumented, illegal aliens and in the country in-housing and employment. about affordable housing controversy over studio apartments for 3,500 god damn dollars a month. and you are arguing over that from both sides but yet you say nothing about undocumented illegal immigration getting brand new apartments that you having controversy about paying $3 a month. you hear me? it's disgusting. and then on top of that, you've already had hearings and testimony from black people explaining the way they've been treated and discriminated against by every employer
department in your city. you talk about analysis and your input. you have 50 to 100 of us come up here and speak and you only one to give us one minute. that's harassment in its god damn self. how are we going to tell you what happened to us in one minute and when other nationalities speak, you let them speak for two minutes and the alarm goes off and they still get to speak. you discriminating your god damn self and the fro speec free sped constitutional rights. >> is there anyone that wishes to testify on this item? mr. wright. >> michael! michael!
>> this is a peculiar place and one would receive dis a dance against social practice and substance. i grew up on the peninsula where every block was diverse and they learned towards whether black, asian, jewish, latino, gay, et cetera. i believe the proposal is based in a desire and a attempt to deflect and channel unwanted but warranted criticism which might otherwise confront the board or committees directly or force the reinterpretation of circumstances to alternative framework of presentation not necessarily one more truthful or accurate. with the poorest performing of schools in the city and state are denied material resources and teacher pay, when the recommended amount is more, then
trouble at $7500 a year and in an effort to create a stable classroom environment and when a request to hire is denied for a very modest number of attorneys to a number for forensic analysis while they might review and assess a judicial rulings of juvenile cases and jobs are slashed at the housing authority and retraining funds are greatly diminished, this might be interpreted as structural racism and tribalism in the city. >> thank you. is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. so we have a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendations. can we take that without objection. >> is the motion to request as a committee report? >> yes, thank you. it's a committee report.
thank you. >> mr. clerk, please call items 5-8 for closed session. > >> agenda items 5-8 are various ordinances and resolutions authorization settlements of lawsuits against the city and county of san francisco. >> thank you. do we have a motion to convene in closed session. >> so moved. >> mr. chair, before we take a motion to convene in closed session we should take public comment on the four called items. >> sorry. is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on items 5-8 before we go to closed session? mr. wright. >> >> talk about this lawsuit here.
this is example of a lawsuit that was filed unlivable conditions. i was the one that documented and foiled filed a complaint ae family. i got put in that hotel by barbara garcia and found out that senior citizens been exposed to infestations of bedbugs, roaches and mice. i'm the one that took pictures and filed the complaints for the environmental health department to come down there and address my issues and none of them believe me. i'm the one that was told by the god damn hot team that that's the best building that we got, michael. what are you talking about? if that's the best building you got, i sure hate to see what the worse one looks like at all my evidence together before i confronted them. i'm the one that was doing pest control in the building and
helping the tenants out. i realized the upper floors, the three floors above me with bad. i was living in that building for five months. i got more work done in that building in five months than your executive director for the building inspectors got at 31 years. and yet you give her a recognition for doing a good job for taking on the family. you have the executive director for housing and placement and call me and tell me the city attorney wants to use my pictures to file a lawsuit against the slum lord. the slum lord knock on my door and ask do i want him to do. i started construction on that building, renovation of that building. you have a white living next door to me and have hundreds of roaches and bedbugs and the black to my right living in the same manner. i'm the one that got their apartments renovated.
you hear me. >> thank you, mr. wright. is there anyone else that would like to comments on items 5-8? public comment is closed. so again, do we have a motion to convene in closed session. >> so moved. >> thank >> we are back to open session. we clarified that the sediment was for petitioner claims for attorney fees and the committee record for consideration by the board in the 23rd. agenda items 6 and 7 were also recommended as committee reports to july 23rd board meeting. agenda item number 8 was a
recommended asper usual business. >> thank you, mr. clerk. do we have a motion around the closed session proceedings. >> clerk: we would take a motion to disclose or not disclose the deliberations in closed session. >> i will make a motion not to disclose. >> can we take that without objection? >> thank you. >> any further business. >> clerk: there is no further business. >> this meeting is closed. .
>> shop and dine the 49 . challenges residents to do they're shopping with the 49ers of san francisco by supporting the services within the feigned we help san francisco remain unique and successful and rib rant where will you shop the shop and dine the 49 i'm e jonl i provide sweets square feet potpie and peach cobbler and i started my business this is my baby i started out of high home and he would back for friends and
coworkers they'll tell you hoa you need to open up a shop at the time he move forward book to the bayview and i thinks the t line was up i need have a shop on third street i live in bayview and i wanted to have my shop here in bayview a quality dessert shot shop in my neighborhood in any business is different everybody is in small banishes there are homemade recess pesz and ingredients from scratch we shop local because we have someone that is here in your city or your neighborhood that is provide you with is service with quality ingredients and quality products and need to be know that person the person behind the products it is not like okay. who